Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Diwakar Pandey vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.6674-6675/2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.7440-7441/2018)
DIWAKAR PANDEY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The father of the appellant was appointed as Part Time Tube Well Operator on 01.4.1987 after going through due process of selection having applied in pursuance to an advertisement. He rendered 16 years of continuous service and thus the claim of the appellant was that the appellant cannot be denied service as dependent of his deceased father under Rule 2(a)(iii) of the U.P. Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
The appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Signature Not Verified Clerk w.e.f. 28.4.2006 and was made permanent w.e.f. Digitally signed by 28.4.2009 as communicated vide letter dated RASHMI DHYANI Date: 2022.09.23 17:36:49 IST Reason:
21.1.2013. He was promoted to the post of Senior 1 Clerk vide Order dated 24.1.2013 and continued to work in that capacity till date and has rendered more than 13 years of service.
The appellant is a graduate, qualified for the post, at present aged around more than 40 years.
The effect of impugned order would be to deprive the appellant of the job when he is overage for all other jobs, on the premise that his father being a Part Time Tube Well Operator, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid Rules.
We may note that the appellant was initially denied the benefit but on filing the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court allowed by the learned Single Judge on 06.9.2005 with the direction to consider the claim of the appellant. The respondents preferred a special appeal and the appellant was appointed during the pendency of the special appeal. The special appeal was however allowed by the impugned judgment in Order dated 12.12.2017, 11 years after the appointment of the appellant.
The appellant seeks to raise the issue that his case was not covered by the judgment in “Pawan Kumar “Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2010 (8) ADJ 664] 2 decided by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court as that was the case relating to the daily wagers and work-charged employees while the case of the father of the appellant was of Part Time Employee though recruited after regular process. He, thus, seeks to raise the plea that his father was a Government servant.
In our view, there is some question mark on the aforesaid proposition sought to be propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, we do believe that the appellant having worked for such a long period of time and the appellant not being tainted in any manner, the question being only one whether his father would fall in the category of regular employees, it would work out great injustice to the appellant who cannot get any other employment at this stage. Rather than embarking on scrutiny on the merits of the interpretation of the Rules, we feel that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate course of action would be to let the appellant continue in service and regularize his employment invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Ordered accordingly.
3 The civil appeals stand disposed of leaving parties to bear their own costs.
………………………………………………………J. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) ………………………………………………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA) NEW DELHI 15th September, 2022 4 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.3 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7440-7441/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 23-02-2018 in Recall Appln. No.414385/2017 in SA No.114/2009 and order dated 12-12-2017 in SA No.114/2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) DIWAKAR PANDEY Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 15-09-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, Adv.
Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(signed order is placed on the file) 5